PRICE MEDIA LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION CASE
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
PRICE MEDIA LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION CASE
2021/2022 COMPETITION YEAR
Official case of the 2022 International Rounds and the
2021/2022 Regional Rounds in South Asia, Asia Pacific,
South-East Europe, North-East Europe, Northern Europe, the
Americas, the Middle East, and Africa Regional Rounds
1Background
1. Sargon is an island nation with a population of just over 60 million people. It has a multi-
party democratic system. The Sargon National Front (SNF) is the political party in
government. Its leader, Emilia Bos, is the current president of Sargon. The Democratic Party
of Sargon (DPS) is the main opposition party. The country holds presidential and
parliamentary elections every four years.
2. Over 60% of the population in Sargon are adherents of Phi, a religion that has been practiced
on the island for over four centuries. A historical figure by the name of Philemenon the Great
is said to have founded the religion. Adherents of Phi are colloquially referred to as the
‘phaithful’. These adherents are divided across the political spectrum. Both the SNF and the
DPS have voters who identify as adherents of Phi, although opinion polls in the past suggest
that a slightly higher number of adherents prefer the DPS.
3. The Church of Phi was founded in the late Eighteenth Century, over two centuries after Phi
was introduced to Sargon. It is headed by ‘spiritual leader’ Philemon Gen. Spiritual leaders of
the Church of Phi are appointed based on ancestry, allegedly dating back to Philemenon the
Great. Gen was anointed spiritual leader in 2000 following the demise of his father, who was
the spiritual leader before him.
4. The remainder of the population in Sargon comprises descendants of an immigrant
community who arrived on the island in several waves during the last one hundred and fifty
years. Members of this community usually identify themselves as ‘non-religious’, or
‘agnostic’.
5. In recent years, a strong nationalist discourse has emerged among this immigrant
community. The discourse draws from the claim that the community comprises descendants
of the original inhabitants of the island. It is contended that these original inhabitants were
banished from the island by invading forces led by Philemenon the Great during the
Sixteenth Century. While there is no archaeological proof for this historical event, several
eminent historians both within and outside Sargon have argued that historical texts and oral
tradition appear to support this claim.
6. Many young nationalists call themselves ‘returnees’ based on the claim that they are
descendants of the original inhabitants of the island. This development has led to the
emergence of several nationalist campaigns that appear to be distinctly anti-Phi. One such
campaign features the phrase, ‘We were here First’. These campaigners have demanded that
the government include the origin story of ‘returnees’ in official history curricula, and for the
teaching of religion – specifically instruction of the religious tenets of Phi – in public schools
to be prohibited.
Natter
7. ‘Natter’ is Sargon’s most popular social media platform. It is run by a privately-owned
company based in Sargon. It has over 25 million users, including politicians such as Bos, and
religious leaders such as Gen. It is the media platform (i.e. both social media and mainstream
media) with the widest reach among the Sargonian public.
8. The platform has a simple interface that enables a user to post text, audio, pictorial, and video
content. Users can ‘follow’ other users of their choice, and also ‘share’ and ‘like’ another
user’s posts.
29. A user can go to their ‘settings’ page and select topics of interest from a long list of options.
These options are periodically updated by Natter. A user’s ‘Friends’ Feed’, which is the home
page of the platform, displays all posts (including shared posts) by those who a user chooses
to follow.
10. Additionally, a user may also visit a separate page called ‘Natter Matter’, which curates
content based on an algorithm that captures popular posts relevant to the topics that a user
is interested in.
11. The Natter Matter algorithm uses artificial intelligence and has an accuracy rating of about
90%, i.e. it is able to capture, through automated search functions, posts that are relevant to
a particular topic. The algorithm then ensures that a user’s Natter Matter features content
based on three criteria: (1) most recent posts; (2) posts with the greatest number of shares
and likes; and (3) posts that are relevant to the user’s topics of interest.
12. A user will see content on Natter Matter regardless of whether it originates from someone
they happen to follow. On occasion, if a particular post is extremely popular and relevant, it
will appear on a user’s Natter Matter for a longer period of time.
13. Natter has a Community Standards Policy (CSP), which contains the basic code of conduct for
any user, and sets out what content is permitted and prohibited on the platform. It has a
grievance and reporting mechanism through which any user can report content that violates
the CSP.
14. According to the CSP, ‘Content Liable to be Taken Down’ is listed in several clauses, including
sections 4 and 8. The two sections read as follows:
Section 4 (Hate Speech):
(a) An attack against people on the basis of a characteristic such as race, ethnicity, national
origin, disability, religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, and
serious disease.
(b) Such an attack may include violent or dehumanising speech, harmful stereotypes,
statements of superiority or inferiority, expressions of contempt, disgust or dismissal,
cursing, and calls for exclusion or segregation.
Section 8 (Elections):
(a) Deliberate misrepresentation of the facts with regard to dates, locations, times, methods,
and outcomes of elections, or the eligibility of candidates at an election.
(b) Any content containing statements of intent, calls for action, conditional or aspirational
statements, or advocating for violence due to voting, voter registration or the
administration or outcome of an election.
15. The CSP states in section 20 that Natter reserves the right to suspend or permanently block
a user for violating the CSP. No further details on the criteria for suspension or permanent
blocking are contained in the CSP.
16. Natter has a team of 1,000 content moderators who monitor content on the platform, and
evaluate reports of CSP violations. A senior content reviewer oversees the work of a cluster
of 50 content moderators. A total of 20 senior reviewers have been appointed.
317. Content moderators are authorised to ‘take-down’ material based on complaints received
from users. A user can appeal a take-down decision, in which case the content moderator
must refer the matter to a senior reviewer for a final decision.
18. Content moderators are required to proactively monitor any content that qualifies to be
viewed on Natter Matter. Natter maintains a non-public ‘master feed’ of all content that
qualify for display on users’ Natter Matter. Content moderators then review the relevant
content on the master feed to assess whether any violations have taken place. If violations
on Natter Matter are detected – either based on a complaint, or through proactive monitoring
– the content can be taken down.
19. In cases where there is no direct violation, but the content moderator forms an opinion that
the content can lead others to commit violations of the CSP, the case can be referred to a
senior reviewer. The senior reviewer may decide to ‘stay’ the Natter Matter algorithm, i.e.
suspend the operation of the algorithm to prevent the content from being viewed excessively
by users on their Natter Matter.
20. Senior reviewers have the power to temporarily suspend a user for a particularly serious
violation of the CSP, or for repeated minor violations of the CSP. Content moderators are
required to refer a user to a senior reviewer in order for a decision to be taken on the user’s
suspension. Each of the twenty senior reviewers has the authority to independently, and
without any further deliberation, suspend a user for a violation of the CSP. Suspensions can
extend to a maximum period of one month.
21. In August 2020, the government enacted the Regulation of Social Media Act. Section 12 of the
new Act required all social media service providers to establish ‘transparent and
independent’ oversight mechanisms to curb online hate speech, cyber-bullying, and
‘religious extremism’ within six months of enactment. The Act, however, does not offer
definitions for these terms.
22. Separately, section 400 of the Penal Act of Sargon makes it an offence to ‘advocate hatred
against any group with the intention to incite violence, discrimination or hostility against
that group’. The Act does not criminalise cyber-bullying or ‘religious extremism’.
23. On 1 January 2021, Natter appointed an Oversight Council comprising five experts from the
fields of law, media, religious studies, sociology, and technology respectively. Natter decided
to establish this Oversight Council to comply with the Regulation of Social Media Act.
24. The Oversight Council is tasked with making decisions on certain matters regarding the CSP,
including the permanent blocking of a user due to serious violations of the CSP. The
jurisdiction of the Oversight Council may be invoked in three ways. First, a senior reviewer
can refer a case where a decision has to be made as to whether a user should be permanently
blocked from Natter. Second, a user may present an appeal to the Oversight Council in the
event that the user has been temporarily suspended. The Oversight Council has a publicly
accessible website and a complaints portal. Third, any important policy issue with regard to
the CSP may be referred to the Oversight Council by the Board of Management of Natter.
25. All decisions of the Oversight Council are published on its website. The Council is required
to issue its decision within three weeks of receiving a referral or complaint. It has thus far
issued eight decisions, all of which concerned permanent blocking of users. In each decision,
the Council found that the user needed to be permanently blocked due to a serious violation
of the CSP. Five violations concerned death threats issued against private individuals,
whereas three violations concerned breaches of the standards on hate speech (i.e. a violation
of section 4 of the CSP).
426. Users who are aggrieved by decisions of the Oversight Council have the option of challenging
such decisions in Sargon’s courts on the basis that the Council has violated their fundamental
rights.
Presidential election campaigns
27. On 3 February 2021, the Election Commission of Sargon announced that a presidential
election would be held on 4 June 2021. Bos immediately announced that she would run for
re-election.
28. The SDP initially did not announce any candidate. However, on 4 May 2021, Spiritual Leader
Gen announced that he had decided to contest the presidential election. He described himself
as ‘the common candidate of the phaithful’. The SDP thereafter issued a statement endorsing
Gen’s candidacy.
29. Natter added a new special topic titled ‘presidential election 2021’, and enabled users to
select this topic as one of their preferences. Those who selected this special title could view
the most popular posts with regard to the upcoming election on their Natter Matter feed.
30. Both candidates ran media campaigns on Natter. Bos, who has a following of over 4 million
Natter users, promised greater economic development, and improved access to jobs and
social services. She also promised to respond to ‘growing religious extremism’, and reform
the history curricula to ‘recognise Sargon’s multicultural heritage’.
31. Bos was born to Phi parents, but avoided describing herself as an adherent of Phi. She is
regularly described in the media as an ‘agnostic’, and has not contradicted that description.
Bos has, however, openly criticised the Church of Phi for corruption and ‘spreading
extremism’. Her main criticisms have been with respect to the Church’s refusal to ordain
women, and its endorsement of child betrothals. While the Church has not endorsed child
marriage, it has openly defended the cultural practice of child betrothal – where children are
promised in marriage, which they enter into upon attaining adulthood.
32. Gen’s campaign focused on ‘revitalising spirituality within the nation’. His campaign
speeches rarely featured economic or social policy, but instead focused on restoring
‘spirituality’ within Sargon. Gen has a following of over 7 million users on Natter.
33. On 28 May 2021, Gen posted a statement on Natter claiming that more and more people were
abandoning Phi due to ‘degradation’ in society. He claimed that political leaders have
abandoned their faith to ‘cater to the fallen’. Gen’s post was shared by over a million users
on Natter, and featured on the Natter Matter of every user who had picked the topics ‘politics’
or ‘presidential election 2021’. He also recalled election violence that took place during the
previous presidential election in 2017 when a dozen DPS supporters were brutally attacked
by Bos supporters during a rally. The perpetrators were, however, prosecuted and convicted,
and are currently serving prison sentences. Gen called on voters to refrain from violence, and
to ensure a ‘peaceful transition’ in 2021.
34. During a television interview on 31 May 2021, Bos accused her opponent Gen of using his
religious status to pressure adherents of Phi to vote for him. She claimed that his comments
about past violence were a deliberate attempt to create tensions ahead of election day. She
also asserted that religion should not be ‘weaponised’ in politics, and that Gen and the DPS
were attempting to manipulate voters to vote along religious identity rather than on policy.
In the interview, she explicitly quoted the 18 commitments on ‘Faith for Rights’, which
include the pledge not to instrumentalise religions, beliefs or their followers to incite hatred
5and violence, for example for electoral purposes or political gains. She also emphasised the
right not to receive religious instruction that is inconsistent with one’s conviction, and she
ended the interview by suggesting that teaching the tenets of Phi should be abolished in
public schools. She reiterated her promise to reform history curricula to ‘reflect the histories
of all the peoples of Sargon’.
35. The following day, Bos received significant praise on Natter. Several posts praising Bos were
in fact shared thousands of times, and featured on the Natter Matter feed of every user who
had picked the topics ‘politics’ or ‘presidential election 2021’. Some of these posts included
the phrase ‘We were here First’, which appeared under the hashtag ‘#WeWereHereFirst’.
Some very popular posts also contained a new hashtag ‘#Phinished!’. Bos’s following on
Natter increased by nearly one million users in just 24 hours.
36. Natter began to receive complaints with respect to some of the posts that featured the
hashtag ‘#Phinished’. Content moderators took down these posts throughout 1 June 2021.
Towards the end of the day, content moderators proactively removed any post with this
hashtag. Instructions on this course of action had been issued by senior reviewers to all the
clusters of content moderators. By the end of the day, a decision was also collectively taken
by senior reviewers to stay the algorithm with respect to any post containing the hashtag
#WeWereHereFirst.
Restriction of posts
37. Santos Darl, a social media influencer with over 400,000 followers on Natter, was identified
by content moderators as a user who often posted original content with the hashtags
#WeWereHereFirst!’ and ‘#Phinished’. Darl’s bio on his profile contained the words ‘Proud
Returnee’ and ‘VoteBos’. Darl’s posts regularly featured on Natter Matter due to their
popularity.
38. A total of 43 posts by Darl containing the hashtag #Phinished, and another 12 posts
containing the hashtag #WeWereHereFirst were taken down by content moderators
between 31 May and 2 June 2021. These 55 posts constituted the entirety of Darl’s posts
during these three days. All the posts also included the hashtag ‘#VoteBos’. His final two
posts (which were taken down by content moderators) read as follows:
Is criticism of religious extremism no longer allowed on Natter? Do we look away when these
Phaithful interlopers harm women and children? #Phinished #VoteBos [2 June 2021, 8.33pm]
Every single one of my posts has been taken down by Natter. What is wrong with saying ‘We
were here First’ when #WeWereHereFirst? #VoteBos [2 June 2021, 9.50pm]
39. Darl decided to deactivate his Natter profile at around 10.00pm on 2 June 2021.
40. On 3 June 2021, Bos posted the following words on Natter:
It is really unfortunate to see many voices that support me stifled by extremist forces that are
intent on undermining democracy in Sargon. I hope the election tomorrow will be free and fair,
and your voices will not be suppressed. #VoteBos
41. Bos’s post was shared over a million times and featured on almost every user’s Natter Matter
that day. However, whenever a new post that shared Bos’s statement contained the hashtag
‘#Phinished’, it was immediately removed by content moderators. Also, the Natter Matter
algorithm was stayed with respect to any new post that shared Bos’s statement alongside the
hashtag ‘#WeWereHereFirst’.
6The election
42. On 4 June 2021, polling began throughout Sargon, and a record number of voters turned up
to vote. Early polling data based on exit polls suggested that Gen would receive around 50.5%
of the popular vote, and that Bos would not be re-elected.
43. Polls closed at 4pm that day. Election results began to trickle in by around 9pm, and early
results depicted Gen leading the race.
44. At around 11.45pm, around 80% of the votes had been counted, and Gen appeared to be
comfortably ahead with 51% of the valid votes in his favour.
45. Several users on Natter began to express doubt over the legitimacy of the election. A majority
of these users included the words ‘Bos 2021’ or ‘VoteBos’ on their Natter bios, and openly
identified as Bos supporters. These posts did not contain any anti-Phi hashtags such as
‘#Phinished’ or ‘#WeWereHereFirst’, but included phrases such as ‘Stop the Phraud’. Some
users made allegations such as ‘the Election Commission is full of the Phaithful’, thereby
directly casting aspersions on the impartiality of the Commission.
46. Although these posts were viewed by users on Natter, they were not popular enough to reach
Natter Matter, and no complaints were actually made against these posts. The Natter content
moderation team therefore did not detect these posts to evaluate their compliance with the
CSP.
47. At 12 midnight, Bos posted the following on Natter:
It has come to my attention that the election has been undermined by undemocratic and
extremist forces. STOP THE FRAUD!!!
48. Around 12.15am, the Election Commission of Sargon convened an emergency meeting to
discuss the incumbent president’s allegations. All further counting was suspended until the
conclusion of the meeting. News that the Commission had ordered a suspension of the
counting quickly spread on Natter.
49. At 12.35am, while the Commission was still deliberating, Bos posted the following:
The Election Commission now suspects that FRAUD has been committed. Will justice prevail?
50. Both Bos’s posts (at 12 midnight and 12.35am) were widely shared, and appeared on users’
Natter Matter. At 12.50am, senior reviewers at Natter decided to stay the algorithm with
respect to both posts.
51. At 1.00am, the Election Commission issued a statement declaring that there was no evidence
of any election fraud, and that it had decided to resume counting. By then a crowd of around
200 Bos supporters had gathered outside the headquarters of the Commission. Many
shouted the slogan ‘Stop the Fraud’. Some were wearing t-shirts and caps with the slogan
‘Phinished!’
52. Around 1.05am, Bos posted a photograph depicting protestors outside the Election
Commission. Her post contained the following caption:
This is crazy!!! They are going to let the religious extremists win. STOP THE PHRAUD!
#Phinished!
753. Moments after Bos’s post, the group outside the Election Commission became extremely
boisterous. Some attempted to force their way into the building, while others threw various
objects, including rocks and other projectiles, at law enforcement officials guarding the
Commission. A projectile struck one officer in the throat and severely injured him. As the
violence escalated, riot police were called to the location. Several individuals were arrested,
and the crowd soon dispersed.
54. Bos’s 1.05am post was taken down by content moderators at around 1.25am after several
complaints. Due to significant sharing of the post, it had initially made it onto Natter Matter.
Around 2.00am, a senior reviewer made a decision to suspend Bos’s profile on Natter until
further notice. Shortly thereafter, Natter released an official communique stating that it had
decided to suspend Bos’s profile for repeated violations of sections 4 and 8 of the CSP. The
statement did not indicate a specific timeframe of the suspension.
55. At 9am on 5 June 2021, the Election Commission formally declared Philemon Gen the new
president of Sargon. Gen had secured 50.3% of the valid votes, whereas Bos had secured
49.6% of the votes. The remaining 0.1% of the votes were shared among several minor
candidates. The margin of victory was the closest in Sargon’s electoral history.
56. At around 5.00pm on 5 June 2021, Bos issued a statement apologising for anything she said
‘that may have inadvertently encouraged people to take law into their own hands’. She
condemned the violence against the Election Commission, but stated that ‘a full and impartial
investigation should be launched into the composition of the Commission and possible
religious prejudice at an institutional level’. The statement was carried in the mainstream
media, and was posted by several users on Natter.
Oversight Council decision
57. In the days following the presidential election, a formal inquiry was launched by the
Sargonian Police Department into the attack on the Election Commission’s office, and the
possible role played by Bos in instigating the violence.
58. The officer injured during the attack on the Election Commission was compelled to seek early
retirement from the police service due to the injury. He filed separate lawsuits against the
individual who threw the projectile at him, and against Bos, and sought compensation for the
loss of his livelihood. Bos and this officer reached an out-of-court settlement where Bos was
reported to have paid the officer compensation. The quantum of the compensation remains
undisclosed.
59. On 8 June 2021, the senior reviewer who had decided to suspend Bos’s Natter profile on 5
June referred the matter to the Oversight Council for a further decision on whether Bos
should be permanently blocked from Natter.
60. The Council received a report from the senior reviewer on the impugned posts made at 12
midnight, 12.35am and 1.05am respectively. The report recommended the permanent
blocking of Bos on the basis of ‘serious and repeated violations of sections 4 and 8 of the
Community Standards Policy’. It also stated that the temporary suspension of Bos’s profile
would remain until the Council issued its decision.
61. Santos Darl reactivated his Natter profile on 8 June 2021 and immediately made a complaint
to the Oversight Council. He alleged that the take-down of each and every one of his posts
from 31 May to 2 June 2021 effectively amounted to a suspension of his profile, and that he
wished to challenge the decision. He claimed that he was prevented from meaningfully
8engaging in legitimate political speech during an election due to the systematic take-down of
all his posts.
62. On 15 June 2021, the Council published its decisions with respect to both matters.
63. First, the Council decided that Bos should be permanently blocked from Natter, as she had
engaged in a direct attack on adherents of Phi in a manner that displayed contempt for them
and called for their exclusion. It found that the hashtag ‘#Phinished!’ signified such exclusion
in no uncertain terms, and that the deliberate misspelling of the word ‘fraud’ as ‘phraud’
conveyed contempt for adherents of Phi. The Council noted that acting swiftly before
influential users might cause significant harm should take priority over considerations such
as newsworthiness and other values of political communication. The Council’s decision
stated that it had taken into account the context, content and extent of the posts, the
imminence of harm, and Bos’s status when determining that she had committed serious and
repeated violations of section 4 of the CSP.
64. The Council also found that Bos deliberately misrepresented facts with regard to the
outcome of the election by claiming that a fraud had been committed. It observed that Bos
had advocated violence in response to the presumed outcome of the election, and had incited
followers to prevent the Election Commission from counting votes. The Council found that
Bos had committed a very serious violation of section 8 of the CSP.
65. Second, the Oversight Council found that senior reviewers had not suspended Darl’s profile,
but had instead taken down posts that clearly violated the CSP. It found that Darl’s posts that
contained the hashtags ‘#Phinished’ or ‘#WeWereHereFirst’ violated section 4 of the CSP, as
they promoted exclusion of the adherents of Phi, and insinuated the superiority of the so-
called ‘returnee’ community. It also noted the term ‘interlopers’ amounted to hate speech.
66. The Council found that Darl’s posts fell within the ambit of section 4, as they were directed
at adherents of Phi. The Council accordingly dismissed Darl’s complaint.
Supreme Court decision
67. Both Bos and Darl challenged the decisions of the Oversight Council before the Supreme
Court of Sargon. They alleged that their rights under article 10 of the Constitution of Sargon
had been violated by the Council’s decisions. Article 10 provides:
(1) The freedom of opinion and the expression of opinion shall be protected.
(2) Every person has the right to receive and impart information freely.
(3) Everyone has the right to access and freely use the internet. Neither the government nor
any non-state actor shall monopolise the internet or the means of dissemination of
information.
(4) The rights in subsections (1), (2), and (3) do not extend to propaganda for war, incitement
of imminent violence, or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion
or belief, and that constitutes incitement to cause significant harm.
(5) The rights in this article may be limited only in terms of law to the extent that the limitation
is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society, taking into account all
relevant factors, including the nature of the right, the importance of the purpose of the
limitation, the nature and extent of the limitation, the relationship between the limitation
and its purpose, and the least restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
968. Article 25 of the Constitution of Sargon provides: ‘When interpreting any provision of this
Chapter on Fundamental Rights, a court shall ensure such interpretation is consistent with
Sargon’s obligations under international law.’
69. Apart from the arguments on the merits of their cases, both Bos and Darl alleged that the
Council was incapable of acting objectively, as it only had access to a religious studies expert
on Phi. They claimed that the Council lacked any understanding of the philosophy of
agnosticism, and had a bias in favour of theistic beliefs.
70. On 1 July 2021, the Supreme Court issued its judgment and held that neither case involved a
violation of article 10. It also specifically found that the Oversight Council had acted
objectively.
Universal Court of Human Rights
71. The Universal Court of Human Rights exercises exclusive jurisdiction to receive and consider
applications from individuals alleging the violation of rights recognised in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Sargon ratified the ICCPR in 2010 without
reservations.
72. Bos and Darl have exhausted all domestic remedies. They filed applications before the
Universal Court of Human Rights alleging that Sargon had violated their rights under article
19, read with article 25(b) of the ICCPR.
73. The Court decided to hear the applications together, and certified the applications on two
discrete issues:
Issue A: Whether Sargon violated Emilia Bos’s rights under article 19 read with article 25(b)
of the ICCPR by upholding the Natter Oversight Council’s decisions to suspend Emilia Bos
and permanently block her from Natter.
Issue B: Whether Sargon violated Santos Darl’s rights under article 19 read with article 25(b)
of the ICCPR by upholding Natter’s decision to remove every single post by Santos Darl from
31 May to 2 June 2021.
74. Bos and Darl have sought from the Universal Court of Human Rights: (1) declarations that
their rights under the ICCPR have been violated, and (2) directions to Sargon to take
immediate measures to fulfil its obligations under the ICCPR.
10You can also read
